Well, my opinion is opposite In fact, I think the ZF.2 50/1.4 is like a *really* good Scotch, good from the first sip, with lots of depth for future tastings as well.

But seriously, I think that both are great lenses, and neither is deserving of being cast as secondary to the other. All these comparisons which raise one up and put the other down are beside the point: this is personal.

wayne seltzer wrote:
Sorry but I don 't think this is a fair comparison as the 50P is at 1.4 while the MP is at f2.
...

+100

I wasn't going to say anything because I have neither lens and didn't want to get involved but comparing lenses at different apertures, even if it is WO, makes no sense to me.

And yes, focus must be identical.

If the P has focus shift then this must be accounted for in testing/comparison too. You can't just focus once, wide open, and then keep comparing the same point in the image at different apertures as different parts of the image will in fact be in focus. Maybe that's why some people find poor close range performance, or maybe it's just weak at close range, maybe both.

carstenw wrote:
Well, my opinion is opposite In fact, I think the ZF.2 50/1.4 is like a *really* good Scotch, good from the first sip, with lots of depth for future tastings as well.

But seriously, I think that both are great lenses, and neither is deserving of being cast as secondary to the other. All these comparisons which raise one up and put the other down are beside the point: this is personal.

Great example Jochen!
Notice how the subject pops3-d and the people in the background and their shapes are not obliterated by the bokeh. This is due to undercorrected SA and this bokeh behavior of retaining OOF shapes is the same in the ZE 35/1.4. Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.

wayne seltzer wrote:
Great example Jochen!
Notice how the subject pops3-d and the people in the background and their shapes are not obliterated by the bokeh. This is due to undercorrected SA and this bokeh behavior of retaining OOF shapes is the same in the ZE 35/1.4. Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.

That's what I want, I don't like those bokehs with no details, I meant I want the blurry figures are still recognizable just like when you watch a movie were the background is reconizable but not too fuzzy.

Yeah, it's just impossible that people actually owning the lens could like it, because any testchart wanker can see that the MP is sharper, so it must be better. All these people are fooled and they only like it because they want to be cool.

David R. wrote:
I visit the Alt forum everyday, I learn heaps, visiting its foibles does not make me a troll. When posters resort to "troll" says more about their lack of argument than any pertinent point about me.

David R. wrote:
I visit the Alt forum everyday, I learn heaps, visiting its foibles does not make me a troll. When posters resort to "troll" says more about their lack of argument than any pertinent point about me.

Visiting is fine, but vomiting your worthless opinion makes you a troll. Contribute or f*ck off.

David, to phrase what Martin was saying differently, you won't find many people here who will respect your opinion until you stick your neck out and start posting some photos. Like they say, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one. Alternatively you could contribute knowledge, like theSuede and Toothwalker.